ILNews

Judges find search wasn't valid under 4th Amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has found that a woman’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated and a trial judge erred in not suppressing evidence found during a home search.

In Pamela J. Hensley v. State of Indiana, No. 63A01-1105-CR-195, the Court of Appeals examined a Pike Circuit case involving a woman whose home was search by police following a tip that her husband, who was on probation, possessed marijuana. Police went to check the home and Pamela Hensley let them inside where they found marijuana and generic Xanax under a mattress. After finding those substances, police obtained a search warrant and discovered rolling papers, a pipe and prescription bottles.

The state charged Hensley with felony possession of illegal drugs, maintaining a common nuisance and possession of paraphernalia. Before trial, Hensley filed a motion to suppress the evidence and the trial court denied that request but certified the case for interlocutory appeal.

The appellate judges rejected the state’s argument that the search was a probation search – not an investigatory search – and was reasonable. The judges cited a 2001 ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001), that a search may be justified if it related to a probationer engaged in criminal activity.

But the Indiana judges found the police were “pursuing their own agenda” and conducted an investigatory search under the guise of a probationary search. To qualify as a constitutional search under Knights, the police would have needed to have reasonable suspicion that Robert Hensley engaged in criminal activity.

In a footnote, the judges wrote that because their holding is the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment, they weren’t addressing the question about whether it was valid under the Indiana Constitution.

The appellate panel remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT